1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or addition as follows. Thus, this case is quoted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The amendment shall be made in accordance with Section 2 of Section 4 of the first instance court ruling with “related”.

Part 4 of the first instance judgment, the first-aid treatment in Part 12 of the first instance judgment shall be applied to "B".

Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court, the 7th "A" patrol shall be conducted in the 7th "B" patrol.

All of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted not more than nine pages.

3. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred while moving to a passenger for the purpose of measuring the performance of GP input, which constitutes “on-the-job training directly related to the performance of duties under [Attachment Table 1] No. 2-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State or 2-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, such as the performance of duties directly related to national security or the protection of people’s lives and property.”

Therefore, the instant application constitutes a requirement to recognize a person of distinguished service to the State, and thus the instant disposition should be revoked on a different premise.

B. In full view of the evidence as seen earlier, the results of the inquiry into the head of the 7th Army Team at the time of the trial, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff, a member of the association headquarters, carried three persons, such as the director of the temporary station, in order to improve CCTV functions installed in the 000 Malap on August 29, 2012, caused the instant accident to occur at the location of the Mala-ro, if he was a Korean national inside the area while driving in the said area. Before the instant accident, the Plaintiff, prior to the instant accident, went away, such as the Plaintiff’s autonomy, etc., and even if he did not answer to the question of the director, or was under driving, making a signal to the effect that the noncommissioned officer who was conducting the first work at the vicinity of the site of the accident, who was at